cybernationsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:The Unjust War/Archive 1
Posting and Edit Rules Everyone needs to remember to sign up for a profile or remember to post the 4 "~" at the end of their messages in order for everyone to keep track of who is doing what. If not you're comments are going to listed as Anonymous and won't do anything to change what goes on or off. For all the new folks, if you can't include a link to a citation, it is best that you DO NOT try to edit it in, because un-sourced material, comments, info, whatever, is going to be flagged and removed. I know that's tough because the boards are down, but this stuff doesn't have to be real-time. Try to focus on the WHO, WHAT, and WHEN right now because the WHY, is going to have to be sorted out very carefully. JTBeowulf 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC) WAR TITLE DISCUSSION :::I cut&pasted all the discussion about the name of war into this heading. Please try to keep it here in the future - CirrusOfMalla 14:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC) PLEASE DO NOT CALL IT GREAT WAR 4 AS IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE EVENTS. Call it Initiative civil war if you like to, New Great War, But it isn't and shouldn't be named Great War 4 - Altnabla :Like it or not, the war already has 5 of the Sanctioned alliances involved, with fairly strong odds that at least 2 more will be joining soon. Add in whatever bandwagoners hop in, and this more or less IS the next Great War. Which is immaterial regardless, because CN consensus has already started calling this GWIV. - Anonymous :I think his point is that the great wars were unreleated to this current one. The great wars were Orders/Initiative vs. CoaLUEtion/League/Aegis slapfights, while this is UJP vs. whatever the ex-WUT bloc is calling themselves. -Anonymous ::This IS Great War IV. There are already other alliances joining in, and at least 7 of the top 10 alliances are involved. More will come shortly. -Anonymous#3 ::: Call it Grand War, Unjust War if you wish but not Great War IV. The point is, the IV is completely irrelevant as it has NOTHING to do with GWI, GWII and GWIII. You seems to confuse the name with "World War" name that is used for a global conflict. It is a Major Conflict but it has NOTHING to do with the Great Wars. Plus the name is lame. -- Altnabla :woot.. all we need is the GPA and we are set for the greatest great war ever. its going to be a snowball effect more and more are coming each day. the number of nations vs the strength is going to overtake in the long haul. wich its going to be. so grab some popcorn and you 7.62 rifle and watch the fireworks fly..-anonymous#999 Added a title to keep this organized. JTBeowulf 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Organising it as well, merging what I did with Beowulf stuff --Altnabla 14:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but this is too big not to be a great war. The southern treaty web is tearing itself apart, and the web itself is enormous. I think over half the sanctioned alliances are now involved. You said, basically, that all the other Great Wars involved one big bloc against another. That is exactly what's going on right now. I don't know of another conflict as big as this one that hasn't been called a Great War. --Anonymous It shouldn't been called the Great war for it has nothing to do with the Great war timeline. GW 1,2 and 3 were linked in some sort. This is a war between Winners and Neutrals of the GWIII. I don't any LUE, NAAC or Legion yet, it is even anticipated that Fark MAY join with UJP so this is not a great war, as far as definition goes. I think both sides agree with that. --Altnabla, IRON While the title of "Great War IV" is expected, I agree with the proposition that the title of the conflict should be different. The Unjust War would likely work, as I can see both sides in the conflict spinning the title to their particular line easily. : I like "Unjust War", personally. - 63.167.196.17 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC) ::^That was me. Forgot to log in. - CirrusOfMalla 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : "Unjust War" Might work, I don't particularly disagree with it even if it's a bit one-sided but it is vague enough not be certain of whether Unjust wins or is decimated so it works for me/ Altnabla Every war has new participants so determining names on that basis seems to me, a little flimsy. The continuity shared between the other GW's of I, II, and III, is that they involved major sanctioned alliances on either side, and that the involvement 'great world powers,' (sanctioned alliances) are involved is justification enough for 'Great War' title. I'm all for having a "Naming Section" just like we've had previously, but as far as I'm concerned, we really need to wait for the forums to be back up to make any real judgments on what folks (inside and outside of the fight) are calling it. JTBeowulf 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : Agreed. There should be a forum thread discussing the name. However, I will disagree with your point that every war has different participants. The previous 3 Great Wars were all essentially a single conflict: CoaLUEtion vs WUT. This is most definitely a new and different one. This war is "great" in the descriptive sense, but nonetheless it needs a unique name. - CirrusOfMalla 17:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC) :: I see your point and that is completely understandable, however, at this point UJP represents 4 out of 7 of the WUT, so technically the majority of WUT is at war now though they may not be fighting under the Initiative banner. Though I do think this may need to be given its own name given the uniqueness of how confusing it has all become. I don't see the need to press the issue now, but I do appreciate you bringing that point up, Cirrus. JTBeowulf 18:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC) This should not be named the fourth great war. There is a naming thread going on in the in game forums right now. Take the discussion there and build the wiki at that page. I like "Epic War" personally, it's generic and does not refer to either side. -BamaBuc 68.17.148.247 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Personally, I dislike Unjust war cause its POV and we should try to be neutral in articles. --74.105.123.91 01:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Anonymous does not approve! A World War/Great War by definition is when the top powers from every corner take sides and war againts one another. by the logic *it dosent involve the players of the last great wars* is idiotic. If a major conflict were to start in the Middle East but not in Europe then you wouldnt call that the Third Great War? because Germany isint involved we have to call it something else? please.. : The mistake really was calling GW1 GW1. It should have been called The CoaLUEtion War, or something like that. Then we'd never be in this mess. Unforch, folks back then didn't realize we would have global wars every few months. Going to go ahead and rename it Unjust War seems to have a plurality of support among people offering serious opinions in the forum thread on the topic, so I’m going to go ahead and rename the article, leaving a redirect from Fourth Great War. If another name picks up more momentum we can always rename it again, but any name will have a better chance of sticking if it’s used universally. -CirrusOfMalla 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Hypothetically according to your logic if a major war were to break out in the real world, but over the middle east and not Europe you wouldn't call that WWIII??? A world war by definition is when most or all the great powers side against each other on all sides of the globe this is the current situation change it back to the Great War IV : What is this real world you're talking about? Plus there's a gloal conflict section that opened :) --Altnabla 06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC) :: It is absolutely not a foregone conclusion that your hypothetical war would be called World War III. In fact I think it extremely unlikely. They were called the World Wars because they were a different scale war than any in history (and the 2nd one was really just a continuation of the 1st). If it happened again they would no longer hold that distinction. In fact, I suspect that if it happened again the historians of the future would probably rename what we call the World Wars something new. It happens all the time. Look up King Philip's War, for one such example. :: Ultimately academic arguments don't matter. The war will be called whatever the majority of people call it, and the wiki will be edited accordingly after the war is over. :: Its involved nations that make it a global world war, but even with the scale of the war the current one makes GW I II III look like cake. Just becuase "germany isint involved" dosent mean that this isint a great war. This IS the 4th Great War Best name ever: Cyber Nations versus The Internet "Best name ever: Cyber Nations versus The Internet" idiots like above are an example why this war isint being called the 4th great war. people don't know a definition of a great war :Definition =/= name. This is the 4th global war (note lack of capitalization), but your argument fails at producing any reason why it should be named the Fourth Great War (note capitalization). Meanwhile, multiple arguments have been produced illustrating that Unjust War is a more clear name. :Also, making academic arguments personal and calling people you disagree with idiots fails miserably. Learn to do it right or don't do it at all. Proposed Name Change The Great Patriotic Clusterfuck :See the massive discussion about the name of the war already dominating the talk page. And see the many threads in the forum discussing the topic as well. If you want, add it to the bottom of the list of "alternate names", but otherwise: NO. - CirrusOfMalla 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC) World War I EDIT: MOVED INTO PROPER SECTION I have titled the war World War I. The title "Global" War ____ has been accepted in CN (although never uttered) to be the equivalent of the RL World Wars. However the Global Wars have been dedicated to specific conflicts with the common characteristics, and yes they have been big compared to regular wars. However this is truly the war that includes the largest amount of participants and the numbers are mounting, with tens of million Nation stregnth in just one side, these two sides have the potential to cause huge amounts of damage. I call I a WORLD WAR because this directly effects almost every alliance,and will indirectly effect all of those not directly effect it. I explain this through the though that, that most alliances had come to a point where they needed to make a decision to stay neutral or join the war, and for some they had to take one extra step and decide on who's side. And that is a snowball effect because then treaties come up, and for some not even treaties but just friendships, no on wants to see a brother alliance fall.And for those who had not have to make such decision they will be effected by the new political landscape, because with WUT no not suffering a schism, diplomacy will take a permanent change. Not only is WUT divided but is fighting each other, the outcome of the war, who is left when the dust clears, will effect planet bob, our world...This is a World War, and it is the first of the kind in CN. ---- EDIT: I didn't type this up, but it was left by some anonymous person and I assume they'll keep re-typing it so I'm putting it in here. JTBeowulf 23:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Also, I don't know if anyone caught that the anonymous editor changed the Stat's box title so I switched it back JTBeowulf 00:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Isn't there already a war name World War One here. The GATO-INC one if I remember. OrangeP47 00:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC) :Which is perfect illustration for the folly of the "World War X" or "Great War X" naming scheme. Time to move on to giving wars recognizable names. - CirrusOfMalla 01:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC) ::Not really, World War = not used any more. Great War = the current trend. This guy just must have missed the memo. OrangeP47 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC) ----- I was the one who changed it to World War I Because I was tired of the bickering between is it a global war or is it this, and the constant changed, not to mention someone keeps making the Justice League "~" I threw in my two sense and hoped that maybe WWI might stick I gave my reasoning. Also I put that in the wrong part of because I only have a ruff idea on how to use wiki. -Truhijo Change it back to GW4? I know it's a repetitive name. I know. But everyone pretty much calls it GW4 now. It is a global war, and I think it should be changed back to the Fourth Great War. Few people are calling it the Unjust War now. And it should really be named what people call it, right? -BamaBuc 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC) :Huh? Everyone I know has been calling it the Unjust War almost exclusively for some time now. Except that one guy in the forum thread who thinks "because I say so" is a logical certainty. :I say we give it a month and then readdress. In the mean time, I modified the alternate names section to make GW4 and WUT Civil War more important. - CirrusOfMalla 23:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC) ::You edited while I was trying to edit. =P Anyway, I've seen both and many other names, but GW4 seems to be the most common on the forums. As for waiting to see what history will call it, you beat me to it. =D -BamaBuc 23:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Combatant Statistics Quote: All stats are from when alliance issued their DoW. By the time other declared, some had already won or lost NS. Also since you need time to do it after update, all stats are after an update blitz rush. Some Alliances might have been forgotten, I'm sorry about that, please post under the stats if you see that I missed one. Justice League IRON : 10,836,604 ns - 1,628 nukes NpO : 6,197,548 ns - 631 nukes ODN : 5,688,797 ns - 452 nukes MCXA : 5,066,425 ns - 360 nukes GGA : 4,970,213 ns - 292 nukes Legion : 4,420,190 ns - 243 nukes MHA : 2,656,203 ns - 60 nukes NoV : 2,480,259 ns - 315 nukes NATO : 2,338,465 ns - 60 nukes Atlantis : 2,276,574 ns - 84 nukes CON : 2,053,092 ns - 63 nukes GDA : 1,909,130 ns - 61 nukes TSH : 1,535,745 ns - 118 nukes Illuminati : 1,505,713 ns - 36 nukes CIS : 1,464,355 ns - 118 nukes STA: 1,460,546 ns - 86 nukes UPN : 1,275,669 ns - 19 nukes ONOS : 1,210,467 ns - 46 nukes SOUL: 1,141,656 ns - 46 nukes The Brigade: 977,892 ns - 78 nukes NTO : 950,181 ns - 16 nukes TAB : 873,530 ns - 43 nukes -AiD- : 823,651 ns - 45 nukes OcUK : 782,466 ns - 43 nukes NOI : 533,427 ns - 11 nukes PoC : 136,182 ns - 0 nukes CSE : 107,435 ns - 0 nukes 65,672,417 ns - 4,954 nukes Quote: The Unjust Highway GOONS : 13,506,930 ns - 2,157 nukes \m/ : 6,724,909 ns - 632 nukes TPF : 3,206,848 ns - 151 nukes Genmay : 3,043,981 ns - 165 nukes MK : 2,065,452 ns - 323 nukes ASC : 2,012,395 ns - 170 nukes RIA : 1,896,138 ns - 51 nukes FARK : 1,705,585 ns - 12 nukes FOK : 1,595,366 ns - 51 nukes GOD : 1,408,022 ns - 91 nukes TOOL : 1,359,795 ns - 44 nukes R&R : 1,079,667 ns - 27 nukes EoTRS : 992,163 ns - 13 nukes Golden Sabres : 932,248 ns - 157 nukes BAPS : 851,366 ns - 58 nukes OFS : 488,439 ns - 18 nukes SPAM : 408,969 ns - 69 nukes 42,188,606 ns - 4,189 Nukes Up to date for Alliances that have issued a DoW --Altnabla 06:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) added Nuke counts --Altnabla 08:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Added new alliances that joined, Changed the blocs names. Enjoy --Altnabla 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Current Declarations of War IRON: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1053 NPO: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1058 GOONS: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1068 GGA: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1051 Golden Sabers: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1063 NpO: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=1052 I added a title, cause for a second I had know idea what this stuff was. JTBeowulf 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Stop with the flamebait over our alliance title UJP, as well as changing \m/ Ns. I will refrain myself from doing so as well. Dleeted Boondock as he was appearing twice --Altnabla 14:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I edited out the posted versions per the boards coming back online. You can go check them out yourself, but I pulled in as many as I found before I'm heading to lunch. Now that the boards are up, I hope some folks start citing before editing the page, cause that makes everything go a lot smoother. JTBeowulf 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Abstract Bias The Abstract seems to present bias against current members of the WUT. 7 members are still present, and calling this war an effective disunion is far fetched as the only alliance to leave WUT is the NPO at this point in time. I do not think this article has the authority to jump to the conclusion that the Initiative is effectively ended, and it should be edited. JTBeowulf 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : The Abstract was biased the other way round when I edited it, I asked someone from the GPA to write one for me. If anyone has a less biased description for it, go ahead but "Former allies in the World Unity Treaty devolve to war, pitting GOONS and its closest allies against New Polar Order and its closest allies. " Really was biased. --Altnabla 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC) In actuality, it would seem to me that since GOONs, GenMay, \m/, and TPF constitute a majority of WUT signatories, MDC, MCXA and TOP, will be obliged to join in per the WUT. UJP and WUT are synonymous at this point, and unless the non-UJP members of WUT leave, then it should be "WUT vs Blue et al." JTBeowulf 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC) After reading the UJP and WUT charters side by side, there is an interesting legal problem. In the UJP Charter, Section B; Article i states: No signatory alliance, leader or member will divulge any classified information to those who do not follow the unjust path or those without the proper security clearance. The leaking of information, for whatever reason, will result in immediate expulsion from the unjust path and an automatic declaration of war. While in WUT, Section III states: If a signatory alliance possesses information relevant to the well being of any other signatory the presentation of that material to the other signatories is required. So theoretically, "B-i" of UJP violates the mandate of "WUT-III," and therefore GOONs, GenMay, \m/, and TPF all stand in violation of the WUT even though they hold a majority 4/7 or approximately 57% of vote. If the illegal members remain the majority, WUT rules have become void, but it would have begun with the signing of UJP, not with this war. JTBeowulf 17:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : I don't know about TOP and MDC, but MCXA will almost certainly be supporting BLEU. However, in any event Pacifica leaving WUT is enough to call it a major schism IMO. Pacifica led WUT for most of its history, so WUT without NPO is a significantly different animal than WUT with NPO. At this point, it's the same bloc in name only. - CirrusOfMalla 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC) : Furthermore, though their leaving was not part of this specific event, I do think NpO and GGA's resignations from WUT were a result of the same larger conflict with GOONS over leadership. If true, then NPO, NpO, GGA and MCXA (assumption) will all have left over this one issue. - CirrusOfMalla 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC) ::\m/ was the first major ally that MCXA had. Don't assume much yet. :::NPO, MCXA, TOP and MDC are all out. The only alliances left in WUT are UJP alliances. It's not speculation anymore, but fact. This war *is* "the end of a unified Initiative". -CirrusOfMalla 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC) :::: That's understandable, I just felt that saying the WUT was defunct before everyone officially pulled out was biased against the alliances who were still signatories. Now that there is no one left the facts are now clear, as you've said. JTBeowulf 16:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC) What really started the war The buildup to this was started by Modgate as it was the reason UJP was formed so it should be mentioned in Abstract? : The abstract is very general. It's suppose to be a one-paragraph description of the entire conflict. Modgate belongs in the "preceeding events" section. -CirrusOfMalla 15:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC) BoTS status before the war Despite widespread reporting that BoTS was a protectorate of NpO, it in fact was an MDP partner. Source. --Haflinger 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Orange Unity Treaty, CDT and Trident Since OUT alliances are taking part individually rather than as a bloc and on both sides of the conflict, they should not be listed under a unique subheading in the combatants list. - CirrusOfMalla 04:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC) :I agree -Wouser 13:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC) ::CDT and Trident too, but every time I edit them out someone puts them back in. I give up on that one until this constant stream of new editors calms down a bit and we have a manageable number of people involved w/ edits. - CirrusOfMalla 14:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Rationale for adding Federation DoW The Federation DoWed an alliance who allegedly attacked another alliance which was at war with an ally of GOONS. What a mess. Anyway, my original reasons. Haflinger 22:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Declarations order Please folks, if you're going to add in declarations, try to add them in in URL order. There are so many declarations, it's tough enough to go through them all and avoid duplicates any other way. By URL order, I mean add forum thread #2005 just ahead of #2006. It's right there at the end of the URL. Doing this not only means we avoid duplicate listings of the same DoW, it also helps prevent bogus links (the Klingon Empire DoW pointed to a link showing Curland DoWing), and it keeps the DoWs in chronological order, as the URL numbers are incremented by the CN forum server. --Haflinger 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC) NPO's involvement in the war NPO declared on GOLD for arranging aid to FAN. Shouldn't that be another front in the continuing FAN-WUT War rather than a new on in this war? Seems to me that NPO is still not involved in this war. - CirrusOfMalla 18:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :True it is a off side war and not really involved into the great war. So putting it next to GATO seems fair I think --Wouser 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :I just see your note and it's quite big. I suggest you will put it next to the gato war? --Wouser 18:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :: Yeah, I added the note, as that seems to me the best way of handling it. I've missed the GATO war, though. Not sure what the details are for that... - CirrusOfMalla 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :::I don't mean you add it to the GATO war but to the Related Wars part ;) so new a new heading NPO and then the detials --Wouser 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :::: Didn't see that section. Good idea. Will do. Will also move that section above the massive declarations section. - CirrusOfMalla 18:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Kim Jong Hendo 18:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Yeah, add some sort of summary of NPO's involvement and remove NPO from the alliances on the ~ side, since they're not actually involved (and GOLD aren't on UJP's side either). : GOLD declared on CIS. They should be listed. I'd prefer to remove NPO from the infobox totally, but I suspect if we do that they will just be added back in by the next person to see the page who hasn't read this discussion. So I'm hoping by putting an asterik next to them and explaning the situation, that will be enough. -CirrusOfMalla 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ::Maybe just add a new section to the infobox? With related wars or something?--Wouser 19:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ::: I honestly don't think NPO should be listed here. While the wars are are occuring at the same time, they should not be connected. -Chaosman Labeling the NPO's involvement as a "related" or "side war" is incorrect. GOLD is on the UJP side. They declared on CIS. The official NPO position is that we are, indeed, involved in this war. From our declaration of war: "The New Pacific Order hereby declares its involvement in the current global conflict and declares war on the Global Organization for Liberty and Defense." Please add us to the list of ~ alliances. Bakunin's Dream 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :Well, lets get NPO up on the board and add them to the stats. The DoW clearly states that NPO is in the "current global conflict," meaning the Unjust War, because clearly the FAN-WUT War cannot be considered "global" by any means there is no real abiguity. FAN represents a technicality of involvement, not NPO. By stating that they are against GOLD, NPO is by default against the side of the UJP. JTBeowulf 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC) ::Got the flag on the board and put GATO and NPO in their own little division since the dispute over involvement is so noted. I don't have the stats to add into the top bit, I don't know how that's being handled. JTBeowulf 00:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC) :::The fact that GOLD is part of the UJP side in the current war is immaterial to the question of NPO's involvement, since it is totally possible for GOLD (or any alliance) to be involved in two different wars at the same time. By announcing that they are "involved in the current global conflict" NPO has essentially declared that the FAN-WUT War should be considered part of the Unjust War. Obviously fighting is going on right now between NPO and an alliance on the side of the UJP, so it seems prudent to me to list NPO *somehow*, but it is equally clear to me that until NPO expands their operations to include alliances whose only sin is fighting for UJP (and are uninvolved in the FAN mess), NPO's involvement definitely merits an asterik of some kind. Further, if we are going to include NPO on this page for their operations against GOLD due to FAN, then in the interests of objectiveness we have to include FAN as well. I'm going to add them to the bottom of the UJP side with an asterik. - CirrusOfMalla 00:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC) ::::I'm still trying to decipher this situation... FAN and NPO remain held up in the FAN-WUT War. FAN declares neutrality in the Unjust War (which I think should keep them out of the "de facto" UJP side). Now that GOLD is apart of the Unjust War, and NPO attacks them under the stance of becomming involved in this global conflict I don't think that entails GOLD being a part of FAN-WUT, or FAN being apart of UJW. The problem is with NPO fighting two separate wars at the same time "The FAN-WUT War," (against FAN) and the "Unjust War," (against GOLD). FAN and GOLD have no binding treaties and FAN declared neutrality thus disavowing any military or aid connection with GOLD from the outset. JTBeowulf 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC) :::::FAN and GOLD have no binding treaties and FAN declared neutrality thus disavowing any military or aid connection with GOLD from the outset. - Disavowed or not, though, FAN accepted aid from GOLD for the purpose of fighting NPO. NPO then declared on GOLD for helping an enemy of NPO. FAN is an enemy of NPO only because of the FAN-WUT War, not because of the Unjust War. :::::IMO, the GOLD incident ties VietFAN and Unjust War together as two fronts in the same conflict, but they definitely deserve separate wiki entries. Therefore I think it would be oversimplification to say NPO and FAN either are or are not involved in this war, and the only way to adequately explain the complexities of the situation is with some sort of asterisk/footnote. - CirrusOfMalla 01:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::For the record, the NPO has also engaged WAPA and Scotland Forever nations (no announcement on the forums), so whatever reason you had for calling us "partially involved" is now gone. Bakunin's Dream 07:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::OK CirrusOfMalla 13:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::Well if that is the case they attacked without DoW then they still partially involved unless they posted a dow. Because you don't know for sure if that are just NPO nations who are doing it on command or just on their own. --Wouser 12:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC) :Now that NPO have announced that they attacked EoTRS, although without a posted DoW, shouldn't they be listed as active participants? EoTRS were one of the more important second-level alliances fighting on the Highway side.--Haflinger 15:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC) ::Halfinger, you are correct. NPO has stated that they attacked several UJH alliances. Also, Bakunin formally requested earlier on in this discussion that NPO be added to the ~ side. I'm going to add them. And GATO too, since the article even states that GATO changed their minds about it being a side war and declared it to be part of the global conflict. -BamaBuc 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC) :::I don't see how posting a public DOW has anything to do with it anyway. If they attacked alliances fighting in this war for no other reason except that they were fighting in this war, then than makes NPO involved regardless of DOW. Now, what does matter is the extent of the attacks. If there were so few of them that you could call NPO's involvement no more serious than normal "peacetime" back and forth, then NPO should stay where it is at the bottom of the list. If there were enough attacks that NPO's involvement was clearly above and beyond normal "peacetime" bickering, then they should be considered fully involved. -CirrusOfMalla 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ::::The fact that NPO told EoTRS they had to negotiate peace with Pacifica makes this more than a skirmish. I went ahead and added GATO and NPO to the list of independent ~ alliances. I removed the GATO-FOK war from Related Wars, and changed "NPO v FAN/GOLD/EoTRS" to just "NPO v FAN/GOLD" since the EoTRS conflict was part of the global conflict and not a Related War. I clarified that while VietFAN was a related war and not part of GW4/UJW/whatever, NPO was indeed involved in the global war. -BamaBuc 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Don't remove surrendering alliances from the infobox! This article is *history* of the war, not a current events news service. Any alliance that is involved for even 1 minute should remain forever listed with their flag in the infobox. -CirrusOfMalla 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC) :Absolutely true and THAT WORKS FOR THE TOTAL NS as well. It was around 45 mil if I remember well --Altnabla 20:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Unjust PATH and Unjust HIGHWAY are DIFFERENT!!! "Path" means only the alliances that are part of the MDP bloc. "Highway" means all alliances fighting on that side of the war. Please stop switching references to "Highway" to "Path", as they mean different things. - CirrusOfMalla 01:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC) ~ Is not called "Justice" anything! Our name is ~. Please stop changing it. We have never gone by, nor ever plan to go by, Justice Path/League. Brother In Arms 03:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Missing Alliance in Neutral Column A few days ago, the Independent Oceanic Nations declared Neutrality in these events. As I am busy, someone please add this when they get the chance. - Mon 20:12, 17 September 2007 (EST) :Odd. It doesn't take any more time to edit the article for such a simple change than it does to edit this page. But whatever. ION is not listed as neutral because none of the people who are keeping track of declarations for the wiki noticed ION's thread. Perhaps you could point us in its direction? Without a public declaration they do not get listed. -CirrusOfMalla 04:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC) TNWO is The Illuminati. Please stop adding their DoW on GOONS. It's in there. In fact, please do not add DoWs without links to the forums.--Haflinger 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Principal Commanders It would be great if someone who actually knew who is running things would update the Principal Commanders part of the infobox. The four people I listed were really just guesses. - CirrusOfMalla 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC) :Virillus was just appointed Field Marshal of \m/. While the Triumvirate is running a lot most of the tactical decisions are in his realm. Chief Savage Man 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC) ::I'm not sure how this is affected by Virillus' current status as a Legion POW. Also, he attempted to call a ceasefire before being taken as a POW, which was not followed by the members of his alliance. I think we have to put a question mark beside \m/ for now.--Haflinger 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Im againts the idea of having a commanders list... now everyone of all the alliances will want they're name up there... just have the major players or none at allEmperor Rick 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC) : Agreed. The commanders list should be reserved for the 2 or 3 most important "supreme allied marshalls" of each side. There is no reason to list the leader of every participating sizable alliance. But I can't do anything about it, because as a neutral I don't know who the supreme commanders are. This is the one subject where it is better if a participant rather than a neutral writes the article. -CirrusOfMalla 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC) :: There are too many participants, Cirrus. There are too many fronts. And I don't think much coordination is being done, especially between the very large alliances. A large number of alliances are at war with people like Norden Verein, GOONS and \m/. This isn't a bloc-vs-bloc war, where you have a bloc leader, it's more like a giant merry-go-round of death.--Haflinger 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Can we get a list here, then move it to the article? Can we formulate a list of the most important commanders for each coalition? I think it ought to be limited to, say, 4 people per side. Or would folks rather just forget the whole concept of listing leaders? - CirrusOfMalla 16:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC) : It might be worthwhile to list the diplomatic leaders, the spokespeople for each side on the big boards. Obviously, we'd be listing Bilrow and WarriorConcept, possibly some others.--Haflinger 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC) : I'd list Bill N Ted since he is responsible for IRON's military and is very likely tobe coordinating attacks and speaking with other alliances. I also propose to list commanders from sanctionned alliances only and no more than one.--Altnabla 20:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Don't list every surrender in the Timeline It's redundant and makes for an unnecessarily bulky article. Surrenders are all listed in the Declarations section already. The timeline should be reserved for events of particular importance to the story of the war. - CirrusOfMalla 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC) UJP Treatise I removed the link to the "UJP Treatise" since it is in no way whatsoever important to the war at all. If anyone feels a need for it to be here, tell me. BamaBuc 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Concerning GOONS, SPAM, and NDO They're the only ones left fighting on the UJH side, and for all practical purposes the main war is over. The GOONS will fight a guerrilla war to ZI. SPAM got all 20 members sentenced to ZI for nuking GGA and insulting them about it. I have no idea about NDO's status. But the GOONS and SPAM wars are no longer part of GW4/UJW/whatever, IMO. The GOONS war definitely needs its own article. For now it should just be the "~-GOONS War", although I think in the end it will be known as AfGOONistan or something, just as the WUT-FAN war became known as VietFAN. The SPAM war might deserve its own article, but I think it's more of a continuation of GW4/UJW/whatever. Anyone know what the hell NDO is doing? -BamaBuc 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC) :If we could figure out what's up w/ NDO we could say "the war is essentially over" in the article. I've been waiting to hear something...-CirrusOfMalla ::There are 5 people flying the New Dark Order AA, and none are in any wars. So it's safe to say they're out. The Fourth Great War/Unjust War/Whatever The Name Is War is over. All that's left is the SPAM Conflict and AfGOONistan War. -BamaBuc 03:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC) :::Well, and the EoTRS/NoV conflict too. There may be other alliances with surrender issues yet, we should keep an eye open for them. Haflinger 15:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Yeah, but like with GGA-SPAM, that's a separate-but-related conflict. EoTRS had gotten peace before a few idiots ruined it by not paying reps. So the main war is still over. =P -BamaBuc 17:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC) AfGOONistan War Should there be a new article for the GOONS-~ War/AfGOONistan War? It has become a seperate war from GW4/UJW/whatever. I think it needs its own article, just wondering what y'all think. -BamaBuc 13:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC) :Meh. There's not a seperate article for the VietFAN portion of the FAN-WUT War. Seems to be a new section titled "the continuing war" would be adequate. -CirrusOfMalla 13:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)